Bill Overview
Title: Supporting American Printed Circuit Boards Act of 2022
Description: This bill establishes a business tax credit for the purchase of printed circuit boards manufactured in the United States. It also provides financial incentives for entities that invest in facilities and equipment in the United States for manufacturing (or research and development of) printed circuit boards.
Sponsors: Rep. Eshoo, Anna G. [D-CA-18]
Target Audience
Population: People in the global electronics and PCB manufacturing industries
Estimated Size: 5000000
- The bill aims to support the American printed circuit boards (PCBs) industry, which is a key component in the electronics manufacturing sector.
- The global electronics industry, which relies on printed circuit boards, employs millions of people worldwide, including engineers, technicians, and assembly-line workers.
- The incentivization for U.S. based PCB manufacturing will likely increase the competitiveness of U.S. companies globally, impacting global supply chains.
- Countries that currently dominate PCB manufacturing, such as China, may experience decreased demand if U.S. manufacturers expand capabilities due to these incentives.
Reasoning
- The target population mainly includes those directly employed in the U.S. PCB manufacturing sector and their suppliers, as well as potential investors who may benefit from the policy's incentives.
- Incorporating various perspectives such as CEOs of PCB companies, frontline manufacturing workers, engineers, investors, and local community members involved with local manufacturing could provide a balanced view of the policy's impacts.
- A portion of the target population in electronics assembly may not see a direct impact from this policy, though indirect effects (like job security or local economic boost) could be present.
- Considerations for future competitiveness and sustainability of U.S. PCB manufacturing against global players like China and other low-cost manufacturing countries also play into expected outcomes.
- The budget must balance between providing meaningful incentives and the sheer number of companies and individuals potentially impacted to avoid diluting effectiveness.
- It's important to assess both short-term boosts via job creation and potential long-term benefits in sustained manufacturing growth and innovation.
Simulated Interviews
CEO of PCB Manufacturing Company (Silicon Valley, CA)
Age: 58 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy provides a significant boost to our company as it allows us to upgrade equipment without major upfront costs.
- It should sustain and maybe grow our employment levels.
- My concern is whether these incentives will be sufficient over the long run given global competition.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Electrical Engineer (Austin, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased local manufacturing can improve lead times for our prototypes, enhancing project cycles.
- However, a lot depends on whether the manufacturing quality meets our expectations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Assembly Line Worker (Detroit, MI)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Job security is my main concern; more investments locally mean less risk of layoffs.
- I hope this rejuvenates the local job market for future generations too.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Supply Chain Manager (Chicago, IL)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Shifting more purchasing to local PCB suppliers could reduce some supply chain risks.
- There's potential for cost efficiency but it depends hugely on the execution of these policy incentives.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
PCB Design Engineer (Portland, OR)
Age: 26 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 12.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is an exciting time; more local facilities can lead to rapid prototyping options.
- Opportunity for career growth and learning is huge if the industry expands here as anticipated.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Retired Electrical Engineer (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's great to see local industries being revived — hopefully, this yields more high-quality jobs.
- I've seen policies come and go; sustainability will be the real test.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Investor (Raleigh, NC)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Incentives make investing in local PCB projects more attractive due to favorable tax conditions and growth potential.
- Still assessing the long-term gains but the policy certainly piqued interest.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Chief Sustainability Officer in Electronics Firm (New York, NY)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Transitioning to domestic manufacturing for PCBs could reduce our carbon footprint significantly.
- There will be initial challenges, but this aligns well with our long-term sustainability goals.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Recent College Graduate (Richmond, VA)
Age: 23 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful this policy will create more entry-level jobs, aligning with my field of study.
- Access to more research opportunities locally could be a great start to my career.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Local Community Leader (Rochester, NY)
Age: 70 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Bringing more manufacturing jobs back could really revitalize some parts of our community.
- It might take time to see the full impact, but the potential for positive change is there.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $2000000000 (Low: $1800000000, High: $2200000000)
Year 2: $2100000000 (Low: $1900000000, High: $2300000000)
Year 3: $2200000000 (Low: $2000000000, High: $2400000000)
Year 5: $2300000000 (Low: $2100000000, High: $2500000000)
Year 10: $2500000000 (Low: $2300000000, High: $2700000000)
Year 100: $3000000000 (Low: $2800000000, High: $3200000000)
Key Considerations
- The responsiveness of the PCB market to these incentives will significantly impact the cost and revenue changes.
- Long-term economic impact depends on sustained and effective use of tax credits and incentives.
- Uncertainties include the pace at which companies adapt their facilities and the extent of foreign market reactions.